Skip to main content

About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16
's proposition eight. let's start with doma. it's the federal law that defines marriage as a union between and a man and a woman. it keeps gays from get iting th same rights. president clinton signed doma into law in 1996. he now says it should be struck down. avery freedman from cleveland, good to e see you. >> hi, fredricka. >> and richard herman, good to see you as well. avery, you first on this. two cases before the supreme court. let's begin with doma. how much is at stake here? >> i think this is one of the great cases that the the supreme court will hear this term. that and prop eight. but doma which was compromised legislation and signed by bill clinton back in 1996 has always been questionable in terms of constitutionality. and two federal appeals courts have held that that law that restricts personnel rights that is by the federal government violates the constitution. it violates the equal protection law. in terms of the significance of it, it's really march madness. this is so important and so exciting because you have the solicitor general arguing against the constitutionality
wrote, as the president who signed the act into law, i have come to believe that doma is in fact imcompatible with our constitution. he said, back then it was less of a condemnation of legal marriage and a bit of legal maneuveri maneuvering. i asked jeffrey toobin to explain that. >> all we can say for sure is bill clinton thinks it was a mistake to sign doma. he wrote an op ed a couple of weeks ago saying whatever justification he may have had in 1996 wuntd good enough. and he, like virtually the entire democratic party, repudiates it and wants to see it overturned. >> this isn't a thumbs-up or thumbs-down decision. this is the supreme court. what are we looking at here? >> this is a bit of a rubik's coupe, the defense of marriage act and the case of proposition 8, the ban that prohibits same-sex marriage in california. the federal law says the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages even in states where it's legal. so people -- gay people who are married in new york and new england and all of the states where it's legal, they can't file joint tax returns or get
to be looking ahead to d.o.m.a. and prop 8 and the supreme court is going to be hearing arguments on those cases. some people have said the best thing for the republican party would be four the court to strike down both of those provisions so they don't exactly have to litigate or plant a flag on their opinion regarding gay marriage any more. it's settled law of the land and everybody can forget about this being a divisive issue and move along. what do you make of that? >> well look, there's no question that congress, that passed d.o.m.a., certainly has a responsibility as many there have tried. to repeal d.o.m.a. d.o.m.a. is before the supreme court next week, as is proposition 8, the marriage ban in cal cam. we'll see what the court does on those two. i'm opt michtic on both. at the end of the day, we don't decide the fundamental rights of a minority by the a vote of the people or the whims of public opinion polls. that's with a our judiciary is there for. as we're talking about the new language that you're hearing from chairman raince priebus and the report that came out from the republican p
another law. doma, the defense of marriage act. it blocks federal recognition of same sex couples in states where they are allowed to marry, denying them about 1,000 federal benefits the other married couples get. when her spouse died and left her the estate, she got a bill from the irs for $363,000. >> i was heart sick. i lost the love of my life and i was heart sick. with this incredible expense. >> reporter: after president obama concluded the law is unconstitutional, house republicans entered the case to defend doma. >> thanks to pete williams who will join our coverage tomorrow and wednesday, if the high court strikes down doma, that would not automatically require states to permit same-sex marriage but the ruling could be a game changer for what all states are allowed to do. let's spin. jonathan capehart, friend of the show hark as piece out in the "washington post" today where he says, i don't think lgbt american fully appreciate how ten with us thing are on the court right now. he is very cautious. in factoring argues that the shift in social acceptance of gay marriage rec
's ridiculous. >> what the bill does -- >> reporter: now the defense of marriage act, also known by doma first passed by congress and signed by president clinton in 1996, is being challenged at the supreme court. >> it's being asked to decide whether as to whether or not congress can pass a law that treats same-sex couples who are already married under the laws of their state different from opposite sex couples. >> reporter: defenders of the law say congress has as much right as the states to make its own definition of marriage. >> doma is important because congress said it was important. i mean, we sent our elected representatives to washington, d.c., and they chose to say that marriage is one man and one woman for purposes of federal law. >> reporter: and conservatives say the founding fathers never contemplated gay marriage. >> because it's clearly not what anyone understood as marriage at the time of the framing of the constitution. >> reporter: still, same-sex families pay taxes and don't get the same benefit and the issue with doma really gets complicate federal they have children who ar
-- in the doma case, chris, because there the question is, if a state does decide to grant same-sex marriage, can the federal government refuse to recognize it, and there's a question here about whether the government has always or usually or normally deferred to the states to let them decide what marriage is. and lurking in both of them, it should be warned, is this question about whether the parties have legal standing to bring the cases. that's a much bigger issue in the doma case than it is in prop 8. >> i was going to say, pete, one of the most fascinating things i found in reading up about this is the standing question, do the people have the right to -- it's possible worry looking at this week as a massive moment and it's possible that the justices could rule no standing and maybe not. but let me play david boyce, the -- one of the lawyers in proposition 8 and arguing for and against repeal. let's play what they had to say over the weekend and come back and talk about it. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights
. >>> proposition 8 and doma are about to have their day in court. but can the gop unstick itself and its platform from the 1950s? >>> and a former president is channeling bob ross by spending his time painting tacky little dogs. "new york" magazine art critic jerry saltz will tell us why this may be the best thing george w. bush has ever done. hang around. it's monday. a brand new start. your chance to rise and shine. with centurylink as your trusted technology partner, you can do just that. with our visionary cloud infrastructure, global broadband network and custom communications solutions, your business is more reliable - secure - agile. and with responsive, dedicated support, we help you shine every day of the week. these are sandra's "homemade" yummy, scrumptious bars. hmm? i just wanted you to eat more fiber. chewy, oatie, gooeyness... and fraudulence. i'm in deep, babe. you certainly are. [ male announcer ] fiber one. [ man ] excuse me miss. [ gasps ] this fiber one 90 calorie brownie has all the deliciousness you desire. the brownie of your dreams is now deliciously real. >>> it's been an
a challenge to the defense of marriage act, or doma. that federal law defines marriage as being one man and one woman. edith windsor of new york is a plaintiff in the doma case. she fought back when she received an inheritance tax bill for $363,000 when her partner of 42 years died in 2009. here's what she told you in an earlier interview. >> new york state accepted my marriage as a marriage. and i believe and the justice department and the president agreed with me that the law doma is unconstitutional. doma is cruel. it discriminates against us for absolutely no value to the country. and we'd like to see that defeated all together. >> joe johns is in washington with more on what's ahead this week. morning, joe. >> morning. these are two of the most important cases of the year for the supreme court. the case involving edith windsor is actually the second case scheduled to be heard this week on wednesday. that challenge to the federal defense of marriage act. this is the law passed by congress and signed by the pld in 1996 that takes away benefits of marriage of same-sex couples on the f
clinton, who signed that into law say that d.o.m.a. should be overturned and senator rob portman is citing his familiarity with this issue, his son is gay. how do you think this is going to play out in the 2014 midterms and then subsequently 2016 general election? >> well, alex, we've seen a clear shift in public opinion on this issue over the last ten years. it's been quite dramatic. all sorts of polls now, including the reuter's poll last week shows that the public supports gay marriage even civil unions. even in the south, the majority supports gay marriage or civil unions together. democrats are united on this issue. they say it's a big winner, especially among younger voters, and there's a real sort of active debate within the republican party about how to play this. there's a lot of people saying we've got to stop emphasizing these social issues because they are not working in our favor. however, if you're going to have a divisive 2016 primary, rick santorum is going to want to talk about that and that could really hurt them. >> do you think that will be the case in 2016? if you look
married. d.o.m.a. about federal benefits when married. >> exactly. >> interrelated, but not the same issue. >> yes, because even if the supreme court says that prop 8 is struck down, that doesn't require any state to permit same-sex marriage. it will still be up to the states one way or the other. the only question in the doma case is whether the federal government will extend about 1,000 benefits, just like it would to opposite-sex couples, to gay couple who is get married. >> busy week, thank you. >>> the issue of same-sex marriage is among the most contentious facing the country. with both sides claiming they have moral and legal grounds to make their respective arguments. how the debate comes out could reshape how the country defines marriage for generations to come. >> every time the supreme court makes a constitutional decision, it's making a decision that certain fundamental rights are too important to be left to the ballot box. we've done that with race, we've done that with women, we've done that with every discriminated class. >> it's difficult for americans and our public policy
of marriage act, doma. and there are reports of people already lining up outside the court to hear these arguments. and joining me now is the executive director for the foundation for equal rights. thank you for joining me. i want to get a preview of the case that you're going to present to the supreme court next week. >> sure. on tuesday, ted and david are going to go in that courtroom and they're going to make the case that one, 14 times the supreme court has said there's a fundamental right to marry for all americans. two, that denying gay and lesbian couples that right all rights them and hurs their families. and three, allowing gay and lesbian couples access to this right to make that pledge of public commitment through love and marriage hurts no one else. >> it must be buoyed by a group that agreed that children who are raised with gay parents that are married have a much more stable home life for them. but when it comes to whether or not this should be a state versus federal issue, we are seeing governors approach it quite differently. you have colorado's governor hickenloop
be for the supreme court to strike down prop 8 and doma so this becomes settled law of the land and they do not have to deal with the schism inside their party and all the old guys who are culturally or religiously or for whatever reason resistant to marriage equality will no longer be holding office and will die off, i think is what josh says, and the republican party can move past this. >> well, it would take a brave republican in the meantime to move against the party on this with only 34% support in the republican party. and rand paul is not that brave republican. it's always fun to watch him torn between libertarianism and republicanism as he is on this thing, the libertarian view, of course, is that government should have nothing to do with religion in any way. they don't understand why the state would -- be issuing marriage licenses. but, you know, there he is. stuck defending the republican position. and -- but ari, going forward, if the supreme court doesn't help out the republican party this way, how long would it take for there to be some beginning of peeling off of republicans from the p
, will be hearing arguments on two landmark cases. the federal defense of marriage act or doma and proposition 8. so what can next week mean for politicians? mark murray is standing by. so mark, if the court strikes down these laws, do you think that could potentially help politicians in both parties? >> i think you could see more governors, more state legislatures feel like they might have free reign for gay marriage in their states. craig, i will say you're already seeing such a rush on this in states with democratic control. and the change in attitudes has been striking. in our own "wall street journal" poll, 30% of the country supported gay marriage in 2004. that is now a majority. 51%. so a full 20 or more percentage points increase in just nine years. that's amazing in social attitudes and in american politics. >> it kind of reminds me, when roe v. wade happened, a lot of politicians could say this is settled law. so you don't have to spend a great deal of time engaged in debates with a potential political opponent over it. if the court, if it keeps these laws intact, how could that complicate
prediction about what you think, van, will happen next week with the u.s. supreme court? >> i think that doma will be struck down, and i think kennedy is the decisive player. i think will is right, you won't see a big case, it's legal everywhere, it's done. i would love to see that, but i don't think they will do that. i think it's a narrow decision. >> it will affect two or three states. >> okay. thank you to both of you. van jones and will cain. >> you bet. >>> mystery caper. the case of nancy grace's missing cuff necklace. the prime suspect may be anderson cooper. at od, whatever business you're in, that's the business we're in with premium service like one of the best on-time delivery records and a low claims ratio, we do whatever it takes to make your business our business. od. helping the world keep promises. let's see what you got. rv -- covered. why would you pay for a hotel? i never do. motorcycles -- check. atv. i ride those. do you? no. boat. house. hello, dear. hello. hello. oh! check it -- [ loud r&b on car radio ] i'm going on break! the more you bundle, the more you save. now,
party coming up with a video changing the clinton view on doma and in the republican party, we're hearing from all across the spectrum that regardless of what the supreme court does the party needs to have a more libertarian view on this. republicans are telling us it would be a huge help with fund-raising especially in the big states of new york, california, and florida. if the republican party were to be more open on this. and people are telling us that investors don't want to invest what they think losing national elections which could continue to be the case if republicans stay very narrow on this issue. republicans i talked to even extremely conservative ones, very christian conservative republicans are telling me the polls they have seen in the last couple of weeks have been eye-opening, showing not only that young people very heavily in favor of gay marriage, but if you extrapolate that a little bit in just 10, 20 years, this is going to be 70/30 issue that republicans are going to be quickly going to be on the wrong side of. >> to your point, mike, looking at a graphic.
alimit of all the different parties on that. >> if the high court decides on doma, what does that mean for opponents for same-sex marriage? is that a settled issue, but is it like obama care and we'll still be talking about it years from now? >> we'll still be talking about it. let's let the states decide one at a time and that's probably the best way. public opinion is definitely shifting. maybe ten years from now, they all will be there. >> if the states decide, then we have patch work of laws where you have folks who can get married in california, but if they move to nebraska, are they recognized there? whatever your politics, there needs to be a settled universal law. >> for a while, gay rights advocates have argued that this shouldn't be settled in the courts, because he wanted a victory of public opinion. he wanted states one by one to have their people come over to the right side of the issue in their view. but i think that even andrew sullivan have come to the point where they say the majority of americans support same-sex marriage and those who oppose it are becoming less and
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16